Nikolay Vitalievich Shaburov(born January 10, Tbilisi, USSR) - Russian religious scholar and cultural scientist. Author of a number of works on the history of Gnosticism and early Christianity, as well as on the modern religious situation in Russia. Candidate of Cultural Studies, Professor.
Biography
Scientific works
Dissertations
- Functions of myth in Gnostic and Christian traditions in the era of late antiquity (based on the example of the texts of the Corpus Hermeticum and monuments of theological disputes of the 4th century): Author's abstract. dis. . Ph.D. cultural studies. M., 1999. 29 p.
Monographs
- Shaburov N.V. Problems of paradox and analysis of consciousness: Cultural-historical and philosophical aspects. - M.:, 1987. - 80 p.
- Muskhelishvili N. L., Shaburov N. V., Shreider Yu. A. Symbol and action. - M., 1987.
Tutorials
- Shaburov N.V. Ch. 3. Christianity // Pages of the history of religion: Textbook. allowance. - M., 1992. - P. 48-81.
- Religions of the world: 10-11 grades. A manual for students of general education. schools, institutions / N.V. Shaburov, L.G. Zhukova, A.V. Zhuravsky, etc. - M.: Bustard; Natalis, 1997. - 272 pp.: ill. - ISBN 5-7107-0982-4. - (erroneous). (The manual “Religions of the World” was approved by the Federal Expert Council and recommended for publication by the Department of General Secondary Education of the Ministry of General and Vocational Education Russian Federation.)
Articles
in Russian- Shaburov N.V. Perception of Hermeticism by ideologues early Christianity: Lactantius and Augustine // Meroe. - M., 1985. - Issue. 3. - pp. 243-252.
- Shaburov N.V. Man and the world in Gnostic teachings // Hellenistic philosophy: modern problems and discussions: Sat. scientific Art. - M., 1986. - P. 84-103.
- Muskhelishvili N.L., Shaburov N.V., Shreider Yu.A. On the symbolism of the sermon // Man. - 1991. - No. 4.
- Shaburov N.V., Muskhelishvili N.L. Russian heritage religious philosophy and the ideology of totalitarianism // Country and World. - 1992. - No. 2. - pp. 110-121.
- Shaburov N.V. The catchman of Hermas Trismegistus // Urania. - 1993. - No. 4. - pp. 47-54.
- Shaburov N.V. Story ancient Church and an introduction to the history of the ancients eastern churches// Collection of educational programs. - M., 1997. - P. 75-76.
- Shaburov N.V. Historiography of ancient Hermeticism // Russia and gnosis: Conference materials. Moscow. VGBIL. March 23, 1999.. - M.: Rudomino, 2000. - P. 4-14.
- Shaburov N.V. How is religious studies possible? // Problems of teaching and current state religious studies in Russia: Conference materials. Moscow, December 2-3, 1999 - M.: Rudomino, 2000. - pp. 23-30.
- Shaburov N.V. Religious tolerance. Historical and political dimensions // / Compilation and general editing by A. A. Krasikov and E. S. Tokareva. - M.: Moscow Bureau for Human Rights, Academia, 2006. - P. 88-90.
- Le Statut legal des religions en Russie et L’idee de symphonie // Istina, Paris: Center d’etudes Istina. - 2005. - No. 1. - P. 67-77.
Expertise
- based on the book by A. V. Borodina “Fundamentals Orthodox culture"from 16.3.2003.
Journalism
- Shaburov N.V. End religious freedom: From ideological sabotage to spiritual aggression // Results. - 1997. - No. 38. - pp. 56-57.
Interview
- // Lenta.ru. - 07/08/2009.
- Orlova L.// Independent newspaper . - 09/07/2011.
Write a review of the article "Shaburov, Nikolai Vitalievich"
Notes
Criticism
- Solovyov A. Yu.// Advisory Council "Education as a mechanism for the formation of the spiritual and moral culture of society" at the Moscow Department of Education. - 09.08.2003.
- Kuznetsov M. N., Troitsky V. Yu.// Religious security. - 02/12/2003.
- // Information and Analytical Center "Sova". - 07/28/2003.
Links
An excerpt characterizing Shaburov, Nikolai Vitalievich
– Madonna Isidora, have you forgotten how to speak? For mercy, the Witches of your “flight” must be stronger! In any case, I was always sure of this. As far as I understand, you are a Warrior among them? How, then, could you so easily get caught up in the simplest “human” emotions?.. Your heart controls your mind, Isidora, and this is unacceptable for such strong witch, like you!.. Isn’t it you, the gifted ones, who say: “Be always lonely and cold if there is a war. Don’t let your heart into the “battlefield” - it will destroy you.” Aren't these your commandments, Isidora?– You are absolutely right, Holiness. But this does not mean that I completely agree with them. Sometimes love for a person or humanity can work wonders on the “battlefield”, don’t you think?.. Although, forgive my naivety, I completely lost sight of the fact that these feelings are hardly familiar to you... But how well do you remember our commandments, Your Holiness! Do you really still hope to return to Meteora someday?.. After all, the one who gave you his “gift” has not been there for a long time. Meteora kicked him out just as she kicked you out... Isn’t that right, Holiness?
Caraffa turned deathly pale. All his usual arrogance suddenly flew away, and he now looked internally helpless and “naked.” He seemed to be desperately searching for words and couldn't find them. Time stopped. The moment was dangerous - something was about to happen... With every cell of my body, I felt a storm of “black” anger raging in it, mixed with fear, which was seemingly impossible to expect from Caraffa. What could this almighty be afraid of? evil person?..
– How do you know this, Isidora? Who could tell you this?!
“Oh, there are “friends” and FRIENDS, as you usually like to say, Your Holiness!..,” I answered, deliberately teasing him. – It was these FRIENDS who told me everything I wanted to know about you. Only you and I use different methods to obtain information that interests us, you know - my friends didn’t have to be tortured for this, they themselves gladly told me everything... And believe me, it’s always much more pleasant! Unless you are attracted by the torture itself, of course... It seemed to me that you love the smell of blood, Holiness?..
I gradually came to my senses and felt more and more how my warrior spirit was returning to me. There was nothing to lose anyway... And no matter how hard I tried to be pleasant, Karaffa didn’t care. He longed for only one thing - to get answers to his questions. The rest didn't matter. Except, perhaps, for one thing - my complete submission to him... But he knew perfectly well that this would not happen. Therefore, I was not obliged to be polite or even tolerable with him. And to be honest, it gave me sincere pleasure...
– Aren’t you interested in what happened to your father, Isidora? You love him so much!
“Love!!!”... He didn’t say “loved”! So, for now, the father was still alive! I tried not to show my joy, and said as calmly as possible:
– What difference does it make, Holiness, you’ll kill him anyway! Whether it happens sooner or later does not matter...
- Oh, how mistaken you are, dear Isidora!.. For everyone who ends up in the basements of the Inquisition, this has a very great importance! You can't even imagine how big...
Caraffa was already “Caraffa” again, that is, a sophisticated torturer who, in order to achieve his goal, was ready with great pleasure to observe the most brutal human torture, the most terrible pain of others...
And now, with the interest of a gambler, he tried to find at least some open gap in my pain-torn consciousness, and whether it was fear, anger or even love, it didn’t matter to him... He just wanted to strike, and which one my feelings will open the “door” for him to do this - this was already a secondary matter...
But I didn’t give in... Apparently, my famous “long-suffering” helped, which amused everyone around me since I was just a baby. My father once told me that I was the most patient child that he and my mother had ever seen, and that it was impossible to get angry with almost anything. When others were completely losing patience with something, I still said: “Nothing, everything will be fine, everything will work out, you just need to wait a little”... I believed in the positive even when no one else believed in it . But it was precisely this feature of mine that Karaffa, even with all his excellent knowledge, apparently still did not know. Therefore, he was infuriated by my incomprehensible calmness, which, in reality, was not calmness at all, but was only my inexhaustible patience. I just couldn’t allow that, while doing us such inhumane evil, he also enjoyed our deep, sincere pain.
Although, to be completely frank, I still couldn’t explain some of Caraffa’s behavior to myself...
On the one hand, he seemed to be sincerely admired by my unusual “talents”, as if it really had some meaning for him... And he was also always sincerely admired by my “famous” natural beauty, as evidenced by the admiration in his eyes every time we met. And at the same time, for some reason, Karaffa was very disappointed by any flaw, or even the slightest imperfection, which he accidentally discovered in me and was sincerely infuriated by any weakness of mine or even the slightest mistake of mine, which, from time to time, to me, like any person, happened to do... Sometimes it even seemed to me that I was reluctantly destroying some non-existent ideal that he had created for himself...
If I didn’t know him so well, I might even be inclined to believe that this incomprehensible and evil man loved me in his own and very strange way...
But, as soon as my exhausted brain came to such an absurd conclusion, I immediately reminded myself that we were talking about Caraffa! And he certainly didn’t have any pure or sincere feelings inside him!.. And even more so, such as Love. Rather, it was like the feeling of an owner who has found an expensive toy and wants to see in it, nothing more and nothing less than his ideal. And if the slightest flaw suddenly appeared in this toy, he was almost immediately ready to throw it straight into the fire...
– Does your soul know how to leave your body during life, Isidora? – Karaffa interrupted my sad thoughts with another unusual question.
- Well, of course, Your Holiness! This is the simplest thing that any Sage can do. Why does this interest you?
“Your father uses this to get away from pain...” Caraffa said thoughtfully. “Therefore, there is no point in torturing him with ordinary torture.” But I will find a way to get him to talk, even if it takes a lot longer than I thought. He knows a lot, Isidora. I think even much more than you can imagine. He didn't reveal even half of it to you!... Wouldn't you like to know the rest?!
“Why, Your Holiness?!..”, trying to hide my joy at what I heard, I said as calmly as possible. “If he didn’t reveal something, it means it wasn’t time for me to find out yet.” Premature knowledge is very dangerous, Your Holiness - it can either help or kill. So sometimes great care is needed to teach someone. I think you should have known this, you studied there for some time in Meteora?
- Nonsense!!! I am ready for anything! Oh, I’ve been ready for so long, Isidora! These fools simply don’t see that I just need Knowledge, and I can do much more than others! Maybe even more than themselves!..
Karaffa was terrible in his “DESIRE for what he wants,” and I realized that in order to gain this knowledge, he would sweep away ANY obstacles that came in his way... And whether it was me or my father, or even little Anna, but he will achieve what he wants, he will “knock” it out of us, no matter what, apparently, he achieved before everything that his insatiable brain was aimed at, including his current power and visit to Meteora, and, for sure, much, much more, oh which I preferred not to know, so as not to completely lose hope of victory over him. Caraffa was truly dangerous for humanity!.. His super-crazy “faith” in his “genius” exceeded any usual norms of the highest existing conceit and frightened him with his categoricalness when it came to his “desired”, about which he had not the slightest idea , but only knew that he wanted it...
To cool him down a little, I suddenly began to “melt” right in front of his “holy” gaze, and after a moment I completely disappeared... It was a child’s trick of the simplest “blow,” as we called instantaneous movement from one place to another (I think that’s what they called teleportation), but it was supposed to have a “refreshing” effect on Karaffa. And I was not mistaken... When I came back a minute later, his stunned face expressed complete confusion, which, I’m sure, very few people were able to see. Unable to bear this funny picture any longer, I laughed heartily.
“We know many tricks, Your Holiness, but they are just tricks.” KNOWLEDGE is completely different. This is a weapon, and it is very important in what hands it falls...
But Caraffa didn’t listen to me. He was like a little child shocked by what he had just seen, and immediately wanted to know it for himself!.. It was a new, unfamiliar toy that he had to have right now!!! Don't hesitate for a minute!
But, on the other hand, he was also a very smart person, and, despite the thirst to have something, he almost always knew how to think. Therefore, literally after a moment, his gaze gradually began to darken, and his widened black eyes stared at me with a silent, but very persistent question, and I saw with satisfaction that he finally began to understand the real meaning of my little one shown to him. "trick"...
– So, all this time you could have simply “left”?!.. Why didn’t you leave, Isidora?!! – Almost without breathing, Caraffa whispered.
Some kind of wild, unrealizable hope burned in his gaze, which, apparently, should have come from me... But as I answered, he saw that he was mistaken. And the “iron” Caraffa, to my great surprise, wilted!!! For a moment, it even seemed to me that something had snapped inside him, as if he had just gained and then lost something very vital to him, and perhaps, to some extent, even dear...
– You see, life is not always as simple as it seems to us... or as we would like it to be, Your Holiness. And the simplest things sometimes seem to us the most correct and the most real. But this is not always true, unfortunately. Yes, I could have left a long time ago. But what would change from this?.. You would find other “gifted” people, probably not as strong as me, from whom you would also try to “knock out” the knowledge that interests you. And these poor fellows would not have even the slightest hope of resisting you.
Press conference
Nikolay Shaburov, director of the Center for the Study of Religions of the Russian State University for the Humanities
What do we know about early Christianity? On June 28, Pope Benedict XVI said that scientists have confirmed what Christians have long believed: the ashes of the Apostle Paul rest in a sarcophagus found in the Roman Basilica of San Paolo Fuori le Mura. In recent years, both representatives of the Christian church, as well as scientists and enthusiasts of varying levels of competence, have presented to the public many discoveries related to early Christianity. In 2006 there was “The Gospel of Judas”, in 2007 there was “the tomb of Jesus”, and in 2009 there was another one concerning the Shroud of Turin. Nikolai Vitalievich Shaburov, director of the Center for the Study of Religions of the Russian State University for the Humanities, answered questions from Lenta.Ru readers about these and other interesting achievements in the field of studying early Christianity.Kolya
1. Nikolay, are Europe and Russia in danger of becoming a caliphate?
2. How do you see the coming and actions of the Antichrist?
3. Can the director of the CIR be Orthodox or should he be a skeptic for a cold and equal attitude towards all religions and religious movements?
1. I don't think so. I think this is some kind of fantasy. I don't see any reason for this.
Lenta.Ru: But it is believed that Islam is on the rise today, and everyone else...
On the rise, but, you know, it may be on the rise compared to the denominations that exist in European Christianity, but Europe as a whole is a secular society with its own ideology. I think that Islam is unlikely to grow so strong in Europe, and in such extreme radical forms. I think this is from the realm of fantasy.
3. The director of the Center for the Study of Religions, like anyone who studies religion, must take a scientific position. These are objective, non-confessional positions. But he may be Orthodox, he may be an unbeliever, he may be Catholic - that’s another question. We have Orthodox teachers, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, agnostics, non-believers, but they are all united by a scientific position, an understanding of what objective scientific discourse is.
Lenta.Ru: Doesn’t one interfere with the other?
It doesn't bother us. I understand that with a certain worldview, perhaps this can interfere. What is called a religious position is not a single position; there is a very wide spectrum. There may be a position here that denies any objective view, such an extremely subjective one - and in this case, of course, it is impossible to objectively study religion. And when, say, they say - now the phrase “Orthodox religious studies” is in fashion - Orthodox religious studies cannot exist by definition, just as there cannot be Orthodox or Catholic physics or chemistry.
Lenta.Ru: In Iran, for example, Islamic astronomy is taught.
Well, in Iran it is taught... In Nazi Germany they said that Einstein’s theory of relativity is Jewish physics, but in Germany they take the position of Aryan physics. People can make up all sorts of things, but science is science. A scientist may have a different worldview. There are many positions within the framework of religiosity that fully allow for objectivity, which proceed from the fact that scientific objectivity does not contradict religious views.
Onion
2. How to deal with neo-paganism: feng shui, astrology. People around are completely fascinated by them. How to direct them to the true path?
3. Say how to Orthodox tradition is it believed: the Mother of God ascended in body to God? Or is it possible to find her relics on earth?
1. I would say no. Although this requires some clarification.
First of all: it is not entirely clear what is meant by this. Orthodox in what sense? In the sense that Orthodoxy is a historical confession that had a decisive influence on the formation of Russian culture? Yes, sure. In this sense, Spain and Italy are Catholic countries, Bulgaria and Russia are Orthodox.
But is Russia Orthodox today? I would say no. Despite the fact that, according to recent sociological surveys, 72 percent of the population consider themselves Orthodox, and this number is growing. Ten years ago it was, I think, 54 percent. But this is rather a kind of self-identification. This is not evidence of deep religiosity.
It seems to me that Russia is not a very religious country. And an extremely small percentage of those who regularly attend religious services or truly understand the Christian Orthodox faith. I think that Russia still remains a secular country.
Lenta.Ru: There is one of the common definitions of the United States - “the most religious of the developed countries.” Compared to Russia, is the USA really a more religious country?
Depends on what we mean by religiosity.
Lenta.Ru: For example, it is a well-known fact that in the foreseeable future an atheist will not be able to become president in the United States.
Firstly, let’s not speculate about the future; after all, it’s in the fog. Could you have imagined 25 years ago that a black man would become president of the United States? But let’s say this: we now have such a configuration in Russia that religion, in particular the Russian Orthodox Church, plays a big role in politics and in public life. For the United States this is absolutely impossible, there is a tradition of complete separation of church and state. And there is no such single big church.
But if we talk about mass religiosity, yes, probably. The United States did not have the era of forcibly enforced atheism that Russia had. On the other hand, secularization tendencies there were not in such an anti-clerical, anti-religious form as was the case in Europe. And of course, America as a whole is more religious than Europe.
Although... People consider themselves religious. But in general, the processes of secularization that continue in the world, of course, also include the United States, and it seems to me that the role of religion is slowly declining. And in America too.
3. This is a difficult question. The fact is that the dogma of the bodily ascension of the Mother of God exists in the Catholic Church precisely as a dogma obligatory for all believers. Moreover, he was proclaimed by Pope Pius XII relatively recently, in the mid-1950s. As far as I know, this does not exist as such a dogma in Orthodoxy. But as a widely held belief, yes, absolutely. From this position, there can be no relics.
But here is the subtlety: if it is a dogma, as in Catholicism, it means that if you call yourself a Catholic, you cannot dispute it, you cannot doubt it. In reality, many Catholics may not accept this, but this is already a discrepancy between theory and practice. And if this is not dogmatically defined, as in Orthodoxy, then I think that you can be an Orthodox believer and still believe that there was no bodily ascension and that power can be acquired.
Lukic
Is the descent of the Holy Fire a miracle, or is it still, albeit sacred, a creation of human hands?
Here I will express my own position, based on some study of the literature about this. I believe this is a man-made thing. Moreover, it must be said that over the last fifty-odd years we can state a certain degradation of the Orthodox consciousness towards the affirmation of irrationality.
In the first half of the twentieth century there was such a major specialist in liturgics from the Moscow Theological Academy - N.D. Uspensky. And in 1949 he read a report at a meeting of the Theological Academy - a detailed historical report dedicated to this phenomenon. It was recently re-released. The facts that Uspensky cited indicated that this was a man-made phenomenon. He revealed when it arose, for what reason, why it continues, and so on and so forth. Now, with us, if you deny the miraculous nature of the Holy Fire, then you will simply be called non-Orthodox.
And even if we turn to this issue from a theological position, there is a lot to show. It seems to me that a true believer should feel some embarrassment that the Lord resorts to such, excuse me, tricks.
And all the stories that are told about this are absolutely legendary. Moreover, they are very aggressively confessional. The fact that once there, in the 16th or 17th centuries, the Armenians persuaded the Turkish authorities not to allow Orthodox Christians to go to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher for Easter, and they themselves wanted to get this holy fire. And supposedly they could not do this. And the Orthodox gathered near the walls of the temple, on the street - and fire appeared from the wall. Now they show cracks or soot in the wall... This is a legendary story, of course. Moreover, again, it existed in different versions, and the Orthodox were not always the heroes there. For example, there is information that at the end of the 17th century, the leading denomination that controlled everything in the Jerusalem Temple was the Ethiopian Church. And I read that in the 17th century, the Ethiopians, let’s say, produced this fire.
Yes, and there was a recent very ambiguous statement by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who called it rather a sacred rite. He didn't say the word "miracle".
Sergey
Good afternoon
Please tell us about your attitude to the interpretation of events occurring in Christian times given in the bestseller “The Da Vinci Code”. How far is this from the true state of affairs?
It seems to me that this is very far from the true state of affairs. This is partly a figment of the author’s imagination, partly it is based on some, let’s say, pseudo-historical tradition. He relied on some works, but completely unscientific ones.
If we talk about reliable sources, those that can be trusted, and not about later legends, we have minimal material concerning Mary Magdalene. And the material that we have - say, in the New Testament - does not provide any basis for the constructions that we see in Dan Brown's novel. I think that this should be viewed precisely as a novel and as some kind of writer’s fantasy.
Lenta.Ru: So we can neither confirm nor deny – we simply don’t have enough materials?
We can assume that everything is possible. If we don’t know something, then anything is possible.
Lenta.Ru: Why then is the generally accepted construction - that Magdalene was a harlot and so on - better than Brown's construction?
Firstly, the fact that she was a harlot is also a legend. Now the publishing house "The Whole World" is about to publish a book by the prominent researcher Bart Ehrman, translated, called "Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene." There, firstly, an analysis is given of all the historical information that we have about these characters. And besides, the legends and why these legends arose were analyzed.
If you carefully re-read the canonical Gospels, you will not read anywhere that Mary Magdalene was a harlot. It was later that she was, for various reasons, identified with the anonymous harlot who is mentioned in the Gospel. Mary was one of the women who joined Jesus, his movement, who accompanied him. We can talk about the extent to which she was close to Jesus. Everything else is fantasy.
When we have some statements that are still close to the era of Jesus, we can somehow raise the question - maybe it happened, maybe it didn’t happen. And when a certain construction appears in the 21st century, it is not known what it is based on, and then they say: “Try to refute it,” - so you can come up with all sorts of fantasies. I don’t want to blaspheme, but you can say anything at all. We have no grounds... And even more so, everything that was heaped up with this child, the foundation of the Merovingian dynasty - it can be shown that this could not even have happened.
Tikhon
1. Are there artifacts related directly to Jesus Christ whose authenticity has been scientifically proven? For example, pieces of wood from the cross on which he was crucified, the notorious spear of a legionnaire, or something else.
2. How do you feel about the film Zeitgeist (Spirit of the Times), in the part where it talks about Christianity?
3. Does a modern person, not a specialist, even need to know about Christianity in such detail? Or is it simple enough general information- was born, lived, died, resurrected?
Ilya
http://site/news/2009/07/01/turin/
Here again they write that the Shroud of Turin was made by Leonardo. How likely is it that the Shroud of Turin is what it is claimed to be and not a later forgery?
1. No, there is nothing. For some time there were those who presented the Shroud of Turin as such an artifact, but now radiocarbon dating has shown that it is most likely 14th century - in which case we can say that there are no artifacts.
It seems doubtful to me that Leonardo made the Shroud of Turin. To be honest, I can’t speak with complete confidence; I don’t know this version well. But Leonardo is still at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries, and the shroud dates from the 14th century. To be honest, I have not heard versions related to Leonardo. , in any case, goes back to times earlier than Leonardo’s lifetime.
2. To be honest, I have not seen this film. Unfortunately. We need to look.
3. This is a strange question. What does "need" mean? It's very individual. Does a Russian person need to know Pushkin and Tolstoy well, read “Eugene Onegin” and “War and Peace” and remember - or is it enough for him to know that there were such poets and writers in the 19th century? Everyone decides for themselves.
I. Frolov
Are there reliable materials that carry the genomes of the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ (hair, dandruff, traces of blood, relics, etc.)? If they exist, is it possible to determine the genome of God?
I have already answered the first part - there is nothing, no materials. Well, as for the genome of God, such a thing does not fit into my idea of God.
Lenta.Ru: But there is a human incarnation in the form of Jesus Christ? So there is also a genome?
You know what - it will still be the human genome. God is immaterial, so he cannot have a genome.
Lenta.Ru: Well, in general, this is some kind of strange idea about confirming religious dogmas using natural scientific methods. Is it necessary at all? Do they need to be clearly separated? This is a favorite argument - “scientists, don’t meddle in our religion, and then we, churchmen, won’t meddle in your science.”
What does it mean “don’t interfere with our religion”? Yes, the existence of God is scientifically unprovable and irrefutable, and science has nothing to do with it. And the corresponding dogmas, teachings concerning the existence of God - they are on a completely different plane than scientific knowledge. But, let's say, when it comes to some historical facts or some statements - for example, about the dating of the Bible, about the problem of the authorship of biblical books, and so on - then here science may well express its opinion.
Ivan
Russia is experiencing a "religious renaissance" after decades of godless Soviet rule. At the same time, in America (the most religious of the developed countries) the position of religion is weakening (see, for example. Atheist Richard Dawkins swears at the dominance of obscurantist churchmen, and churchmen swears at the dominance of the school of Darwinism.
So what's going on? In which direction is humanity moving - towards atheism-rationalism-materialism or towards religiosity-church-creationism?
I'm very afraid of forecasts. Although I am not a very old man, I have already experienced many revolutions in consciousness. When some current state was extrapolated to the future, and then it turned out that the world is much more changeable than we think. When I was fifteen or even twenty years old (and now I’m 56), I couldn’t even imagine the world in which I live now.
It is difficult to say how far the decline in religiosity will go in the United States. The so-called religious revival- this is rather a search for self-identification in our country, which turned out to be associated with Orthodoxy. Again, it's hard to say how long this will last. Here the question was: is Russia an Orthodox country? I remember well the time when everyone would answer that Russia is an atheistic country, and that was quite recently, twenty to twenty-five years ago. Therefore, I don’t know what will happen in twenty to twenty-five years.
I have a feeling that multidirectional processes are taking place in the world. Despite globalization, the world is still quite heterogeneous. The vector of development in the same countries of Islam and in Europe is different. But I would say this: if globalization trends intensify, most likely this will lead to some decline in religiosity. If the world becomes more diverse and some regions appear that will follow their own special path, then the religious factor may also strengthen there.
Alexei
When and on what grounds were the four “correct” Gospels selected and many other gospels declared “apocrypha”? And who were the evangelists? Did they themselves see what they wrote about?
I want to make a reservation: this is a confusing question, there is different points vision. I will present a point of view that has been in some scientific mainstream for quite some time. There are other positions, but they still must be considered marginal. I'm talking specifically about scientific positions.
First, why were these Gospels selected? I would say that there are a combination of two factors here. The first factor is that these appear to be the earliest of all the Gospels. But there is a second factor: these are the texts that are more consistent with the current in Christianity, which, in the end, won and became dominant.
If we talk about the many apocryphal gospels - about those that have come down to us, or about fragments (in general, a lot have come down to us) - then they were almost all written in the 2nd century. The debate is about only one thing - the Gospel of Thomas, which some date back quite early, to the 1st century. There is also a difficult question. Apparently the text has undergone some editing.
The canonical Gospels are more ancient. Now: what time, when were they written, by whom, who were the evangelists and whether they were witnesses to these events. I will now briefly outline the prevailing version in science.
The earliest Gospel, the first, is the Gospel of Mark. By the way, it is the shortest. And it was written, apparently, in the early 70s. That is, forty years after the events it tells about. Mark, the author of this Gospel, whatever his name, was not a witness to what he wrote about. According to church tradition, Mark was the secretary and translator of the Apostle Peter and wrote based on his stories. Many dispute this connection between Mark and Peter. We cannot be completely sure that his name was really Mark.
The Gospels of Matthew and Luke were apparently written in the 80s, that is, later. There is such a term - synoptic Gospels. These are the three Gospels: Mark, Matthew and Luke. The fact is that it was noticed a long time ago that these Gospels are very close to each other, there is simply a huge degree of closeness. The Gospel of John is very different from them. And the conviction arose that these three Gospels were somehow connected with each other. It is now believed that the authors of the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew worked independently of each other, but had before them the text of Mark, from which they borrowed a lot. In addition, they apparently used another written source that has not reached us - a collection of the sayings of Jesus, the so-called Logia. The Gospel of Thomas, apocryphal, is close in genre to this: “Jesus said”... Mark mainly sets out the acts, and the “Logies” contained the sayings of Jesus.
It so happened that in science this source that has not reached us is called “Q”, the first letter of the German word “Quelle” - “source”. In general, at the end of the 19th century, it was mainly Germans who were engaged in the study of early Christianity and the Gospels. There have been many attempts to reconstruct this source.
The author of "Matthew" and the author of "Luke" used "Mark", used "Q" and each of them also used some of their own sources - maybe written, maybe oral. And of course, they were not eyewitnesses of the events either. If we turn to the traditional version, Luke was a doctor from Antioch and was close to the Apostle Paul. This is the next era. And even this tradition does not claim that Luke was an eyewitness to the events.
With Matthew it is more difficult, because, we know from the text of the Gospel, Matthew was a publican, a tax collector, one of the closest disciples of Jesus. And accordingly, the Gospel is attributed to him. But modern science it rejects.
At the beginning of the 2nd century there was such an early Christian writer Papias of Hierapolis. His works have not reached us, but fragments have survived in retellings of other historians. He wrote that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and then whoever could translate it into Greek. It's become common church tradition. But the fact is that modern philology and modern linguistics very clearly distinguish the original text from the translation. The Gospel of Matthew, like the other Gospels, is written in Greek. This is not a translation from Hebrew. And then, if the author really was Matthew, who was an eyewitness to the events, it is unlikely that he would have copied entire sections from the Gospel of Mark - despite the fact that Mark obviously was not a witness. It doesn't work.
This concerns weather forecasters. The Gospel of John is very different in both content and character. It's the latest. Apparently this is the late 90s. There is controversy over the authorship. It is unlikely that this is still John, the son of Zebedee, who is known to us from the Gospels. There was a version, recently put forward by the German researcher Hengel, that this was Elder John, or Prester John, mentioned in the sources, who is distinguished from John, the son of Zebedee. This is generally a complex question in science, the question of the so-called “John’s Corpus”, because under the name of John in the New Testament there is the Gospel, two Epistles and the Apocalypse. The Epistles and the Gospel are close to each other. They came from the same circle. Apocalypse is very different. Most researchers believe that the Gospel and the Apocalypse were written by different authors. Some, however, see some kind of closeness.
Everything there is quite complicated and confusing. A favorite student is mentioned, say. It is believed that this beloved disciple is the author of the Gospel. But who this beloved student is is, again, unclear.
And here is another point related to the question of authorship. The fact is that, in fact, the Gospels are anonymous; the names of the authors are not indicated in the text itself. Authorship was later attributed. But we must keep in mind the following circumstance. There was such a wonderful work by our domestic researcher, Sergei Sergeevich Averintsev, which was called “Authorship and Authority”, he wrote there that in ancient times there was no modern concept of authorship. It was replaced by the concept of authority, which was controlled by some community, for example, a religious community. And the role of tradition was very great. There was a legend that King David led a circle of poets and musicians, singers, and he himself took some part in this work. And then, over the centuries, all the works of this genre were called “the psalms of David.” It was the authority of David who sanctified this tradition. Just like all such aphorisms related to worldly - and not only worldly - wisdom, were traditionally attributed to Solomon. Also not authorship, but authority.
It's the same here. The reliability of the Gospel, from the point of view of church tradition, is confirmed by the authority of a given apostle. The Greek titles of the Gospels include the word “kata”: “kata Marcon”, “kata Mattaion”. This word is not quite correctly translated "from". It is better to translate – “according to Mark (Matthew)” or “according to Mark.” This may indicate authorship (later it was taken for authorship), but it may indicate that the author or authors relied on the authority of this apostle.
To summarize: apparently, after all, the evangelists were not witnesses to the events, but these are the most ancient texts about Jesus that we have. And of course, the evangelists, including the very first, Mark, relied on oral tradition and eyewitness accounts. Judge for yourself: from forty years - Mark - to sixty-seventy years - John - this is the interval. It's a lot? Few? Hard to say.
Grandfather
Nikolai Vitalievich!
Have you seen Pasolini's film The Gospel of Matthew? It shows well the homosexual nature of early Christianity, this protest against the bestiality into which people had fallen.
Do you think the Church today can help believers get rid of homophobia, which is so widespread these days?
I saw Pasolini's film, but haven't seen it for a long time. He made a very big impression on me and really liked him. But I didn’t get the impression at all that there were any homosexual moments there. I didn't catch this. Therefore, this question surprised me very much; I need to rewatch the film.
Moreover, I remember that I read something later about Pasolini, I once talked with other people who later saw this film, and I had never heard about it. By the way, which is typical, the film seems to be so innovative (and it is perceived as such), but not a single word has been changed, the entire text is based on the Gospel of Matthew. You can accept it or not, but this is the right of the artist. I think this is a very powerful film. I saw a Scorsese film on this topic, I saw a Mel Gibson film. I would put Pasolini's film in first place.
As for the church and homophobia, at the moment - I don’t think so. The Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church take completely homophobic positions. There is a strong current in Protestantism that is reconsidering this point; but, in any case, I don’t think that such a more tolerant attitude towards this will come from the church.
Calm
Dear Mr. Shaburov, can I ask three questions at once, or rather four?
Why are the Jews blamed for the death of Christ and not the Italians?
What is the position of the Russian Orthodox Church on the issue of “Jewish guilt”?
Is it possible to be a Christian and an anti-Semite at the same time?
Here we should immediately clarify: we should probably say not “Italians”, but “Romans”.
This question is very difficult to answer briefly. Christianity arose in the Jewish environment. Jesus was a Jew, like all the apostles and closest disciples. But already in the first generation, preaching began among the pagans, among non-Jews. There were Jewish-Christian, pagan-Christian, and mixed communities. But due to tragic historical circumstances - the so-called Jewish War, the bloody uprising against Rome, the bloody suppression of this uprising - Jewish Christianity First of all, the Jerusalem community and other Palestinian communities practically ceased to exist. Pagan-Christian communities remained. When I say "pagan" I mean their origin.
As one author wrote, and I agree with him, blaming the Jews for the execution of Jesus is about the same as blaming the Americans for the assassination of Kennedy. But then this kind of theological rivalry arose. According to the Bible, Jews are God's chosen people. From the very beginning, the Christian Church considered itself the chosen people. That the promises that God gave to the Jews in the Bible were transferred to the church, which began to call itself the New Israel. And this concept - it seemed to envisage that the old Israel would cease to exist or would all convert to Christianity. That did not happen. And the presence of Israel itself, Jews who professed Judaism, did not fit into this theological picture. Hence this, let’s say, Christian anti-Semitism, which, of course, is somewhat paradoxical and absurd.
If we turn to the texts of the Apostle Paul - that Christian New Testament author who was one of the initiators of preaching to the pagans and who brought Christianity beyond the boundaries of Judaism, if we read carefully, say, the Epistle to the Romans, we will understand that there should not have been grounds for Christian anti-Semitism. However, this is a reality that has existed for centuries.
Lenta.Ru: Is she the same age as the Christian church, or younger? In this matter, this is precisely the main thing.
This is a painful question. Let's put it this way: these trends arose quite early, but they developed and intensified. There is some debate about this. I wouldn't go too far because there are works or positions that speak to the anti-Semitic potential of the New Testament. I think it's wrong. But already in the 2nd century we see such rivalry, confrontation between Christianity and Judaism, and on this basis - anti-Semitism. And after the victory of Christianity in the 4th century it intensified, and then all these typical accusations of deicide and so on. Therefore, I can answer the question “is it possible to be a Christian and an anti-Semite”? Yes, this is an unfortunate phenomenon, but it happens.
Rustam
1. Do you think New Testament- is this, after all, a development of those ideas that were in the Old, or did Jesus preach something fundamentally new?
1. Both. It is very difficult to speak with any certainty here.
Jesus, I believe, was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet, that is, one who preached the imminent arrival of the end times. And Jesus, of course, within the framework of Judaism. But we must keep in mind that 1st century Judaism is very diverse. It was then, due to a number of historical reasons, in the 2nd-3rd centuries that normative rabbinic Judaism was formed with certain frameworks and boundaries. And the 1st century was a set of movements that were extremely hostile to each other. Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes... And when Christians arose, in the beginning, when the widespread preaching of the pagans had not yet begun, they were in this context. And even in some ways, the Essenes, as indicated by the Dead Sea Scrolls, were further removed from Temple Judaism than the early Christians. Despite Jesus' execution, many members of the early Jerusalem community continued to participate in Jerusalem Temple ceremonies. And, let’s say, the Qumranites had not taken any part in these ceremonies a century before.
Of course it's new. Hence the conflict. Hence the execution of Jesus. But this break, this new thing, is not as sharp, not as radical as it was thought. In the 20th century, many works were published that compared the sayings of Jesus with rabbinic literature. And a lot of similarities were revealed. Although rabbinic literature is also very diverse. There are some points there that are very different from what Jesus taught. And there are some things that are very close. There are statements that are almost identical.
Here I will even allow myself to refer not to literature, but to personal experience. About fifteen years ago I met a very young American rabbi, raised in a traditional Jewish religious family. And he told me that when he was thirty years old, two years before we met, he read the Gospels for the first time. He never read the New Testament, he read the Torah. He read the New Testament for the first time and was amazed that everything there was recognizable to him. That is, he perceived it as something unconditionally Jewish. But he made the following reservation: “This, of course, is an extremist position. This, of course, is on the brink,” - this is his point of view, there are others. But still not outside, but inside.
Vitaly Petrovich
Is it possible to state the fact that by following the commandments, instructions, and lifestyle, I can be a rich merchant with the opportunity to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?
and if possible:
from representatives different religions(Buddhism, Judaism) I have heard real beliefs that we live in an eschatological era. Those. prophetic writings have clearly described the present time as the last?
Thank you in advance,
You know what, this is a question not for a religious scholar, but for a priest, but I’ll say it anyway. At all times it was believed that the last times had come. Jesus said that many of his listeners would see the end of the world.
It is common for people to see signs of the last times. Especially in eras when there are wars, when there are some misfortunes, epidemics, crises. Or when it seems that there is a decline in morals, and this always seems to people, especially the elderly, in comparison with their youth. And we always see these eschatological expectations. And more than that. The most mysterious New Testament book, the Apocalypse, the Revelation of John the Theologian, which speaks in symbolic form about the End of the World - this is how all the signs were seen all the time in modern times. This happened in the Middle Ages, it happened in the 18th century, it happened at the beginning of the 20th century - and it’s the same now. All this talk about what is described there Chernobyl disaster And so on and so forth. This is as old as time.
Michael
Do you know what the political differences were between the followers of Jesus and the authorities? Is there something visible under the religious veil?
In science, this issue is also debatable. There is such a tendency, and it is now present in scientific literature, to present Jesus primarily as a social critic and social reformer. Personally, this position is not very close to me. I side with those who believe that Jesus is primarily an apocalyptic prophet. But, I repeat, such a position also exists. Such is the social criticism that was directed at those in power and which, as always happens, also has a political background. This is one moment.
Another point is that Jesus did not seem to share the mentality of many Jews of his time, who wanted an armed rebellion to free themselves from Roman rule. Apparently, Jesus was opposed to the methods of armed struggle, in particular, believing that God would intervene and God would put everything in its place. But armed struggle distracts from the most important thing and, in general, contradicts the will of the merciful God. And this, of course, also caused some discontent.
I read political interpretations of the famous episode with the expulsion of traders from the temple - that in general the priestly elite was engaged, as they would say now, in business, and so on. Jesus' criticism hurt her greatly in this regard. We must also keep in mind that now religion and politics are also connected, but we still understand that these are different things. And in that era it was inseparable. These Pharisees and Sadducees are religious movements, of course, but to some extent they are also a prototype of political movements, political parties. It was inseparable from one another - religion from politics.
Julia
Hello, Mr. Shaburov!
If possible, please answer:
1. To what extent was early Christianity homogeneous?
Is the situation in the first centuries of Christianity comparable to today, when there are Orthodox, Adventists, Unifiedists, Mormons and many others, and all are Christians.
2. What determined the formation of the papal version of Christianity as the most influential, “correct” one? I mean the version of Christianity that later split into Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox branches.
3. It is believed that the popes are the vicars of the Apostle Peter, and who was the second, after him?
1. Yes, there was diversity. The situation is comparable. There are also some controversial issues here. There is a traditional church point of view that recognizes this diversity, but asserts that there was a certain main channel, a main tree, and there were some branches, heresies. And there is a position that believes that until a fairly late time, until the 4th century, it was impossible to talk about any such channel, but there were a variety of currents, then one of them won and retrospectively revised history. The question is complex, maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle, but of course there was diversity.
2. To be honest, it’s difficult to say. There were too many factors why some movements lost their popularity, like, say, Gnosticism, and found themselves on the periphery, while others, on the contrary, found themselves on the crest. This is a very complex issue and it is difficult to point to any one factor. There were many factors - but what happened happened.
3. This is also such a difficult question. Peter seems to have been the first among the apostles; in the Gospel this is justified by the authority of Jesus himself. According to the Gospel, “you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church”... And Peter, apparently, after the execution of Jesus led the community, despite the fact that the Gospels speak of his renunciation, his timidity - but no less.
Peter in this regard is the personification of the church. Further. There is a legend that Peter ended his days in Rome and there he was the leader of the church. It is very difficult to talk about historical validity; we do not have any facts confirming this, although, however, this cannot be denied. You see, everything that Dan Brown wrote most likely did not happen, it is too incredible. But the fact that Peter could have been in Rome is possible, although not necessary. Already in the twentieth century, the Vatican undertook archaeological excavations, seeking to find artifacts of Peter's stay, but nothing was discovered, except that the veneration of Peter in Rome dates back to very ancient times.
And here’s the thought: since Peter is the first among the apostles, the bishops were considered the successors of the apostles, which means that Peter’s successors, the Roman bishops, are the first among other bishops. But in fact, the so-called monarchical episcopate seems to arise later. And we don’t even know - in this era, the 40s of the 1st century, was there a single head of the Roman community? Maybe there was some kind of collegial leadership, it’s hard to say.
The first is the authority of Peter, who predetermined the authority of the Roman Church. Moreover, we see this very early, already in the 2nd century, when church authors say that the true doctrine is that which is professed by the Roman Church and the churches that are in unity with it.
But one more factor can be pointed out. After all, Rome is the capital. Naturally, the leading role of the capital's community. It happens differently, but, as a rule, with us, even if we take some religious organizations, the center is always in Moscow. Although, I repeat, there were some exceptions. I think this also played a role. Naturally, the capital's church performed such coordinating functions.
Sergey B. Moscow
In the rituals of Freemasonry (and this, as we know, is essentially the 18th century), a lot is reminiscent of early Christianity (as we heard about it), isolation, secret signs (fish in the sand, etc.), the ritual of agape and the concept itself (and last supper and unconditional love).
How did it come to Freemasonry, after all, so many years have passed? Why do we know about this? Was Jesus an Essene after all? Is it true that in the second century, at the councils, many books about Jesus and early Christianity were destroyed (the number is called - more than 300?!).
Is there information about books about this period kept under seven seals in the Vatican?
I am not a supporter of the version that Freemasonry has some secret ancient roots. I think that the Freemasons, when they were constituted (even if this is not the 18th, but the 17th century, if we talk about some kind of pre-Masonry), simply invented this symbolism, including early Christian ones, based on the knowledge that was available at that time . Not on any of our special ones secret knowledge early Christianity, but on what was already known then. And the way they understood it. Because in fact, if we look into it, we will not find very many similarities.
As for the destruction of the mass of books about Jesus... There was no mass destruction, but books not recognized by the Church were not copied, and therefore most of them did not reach us.
Sergey Soldatov
Dear Mr. Shaburov! Do you think the Orthodox Church will ever convert? Russian church on the Gregorian calendar?
Here again there is some kind of futurological question. This cannot be ruled out.
I was faced with the fact that many do not know that most local Orthodox churches have switched to a new style. And I’m always very upset when I hear on television: “Today is December 25th, Catholic Christmas". Let's start with the fact that not only Catholics, but also Protestants use this calendar; few people know that most local Orthodox churches do too. In the 20s of the twentieth century there was a meeting of Orthodox churches, at which it was decided to switch to a new style. True, this new style was not called Gregorian, because “Gregorian” is named after Pope Gregory. It was called New Julian.
The old style is adhered to, in addition to the Russian Church, by the Serbian and Georgian Church, Jerusalem Patriarchate and Mount Athos monasteries. True, it must be said that in Greece, Bulgaria and Romania this decision caused a split; Old Calendarists appeared there, just like our Old Believers in the 17th century. They exist to this day.
Many Orthodox Christians switched to the new style. True, this does not apply to the holidays of the moving cycle, Easter and those holidays that depend on Easter. Here the Orthodox world adheres to one calendar. With the only exception, there is an autonomous Finnish Orthodox Church under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which celebrates Easter according to Western Paschal.
From a church point of view, there are no dogmatic grounds for the “correctness” of the Julian rather than the Gregorian calendar. Although I have encountered attempts at such dogmatic justification in near-theological literature, in general this did not seem very serious to me. Rather, it is a cultural custom, a tradition. Moreover, this is what distinguishes Orthodoxy from Western Christianity. I would say this: if traditions of separation or opposition of Orthodoxy to Western Christianity develop, most likely they will not switch to the new style, but if there are some other trends, maybe someday they will switch. There is nothing impossible here. I think that this will not happen in the near future, but in some distant future it is possible.
Victor
Nikolai Vitalievich, I have heard several versions of assessments of the activities of Jesus by the Jews, from accusations of deception and theft of certain secrets that allowed Him to perform miracles to regret about the mistake made by the Sanhedrin, who condemned Him to death.
In this regard, I would like to know whether any documentary evidence of the trial of Jesus has been preserved?
Are your colleagues from Russian scientific institutions taking part in excavations in Jerusalem?
In my opinion, the emergence Christian churches as institutions of power and political instruments, their subsequent fragmentation into currents put an end to the very idea of Christianity, since it gave rise to many passions, the very essence of the doctrine of unnatural. The ideas that Jesus preached against the backdrop of the Judaism that gave birth to them, permeated with millions of conventions, rules and prohibitions, were simple, understandable and very easy to understand. Nikolai Vitalievich, do you think that Christianity has been preserved anywhere even a little close to what Jesus preached?
What is the relationship between "science" and the Churches? Which ones are more closed, and which ones contribute to the scientific study of Christianity? Are there any really sharp and controversial points and differences between scientific and church views on early Christianity?
Documents relating to the trial of Jesus have not survived. We know nothing but the Gospel.
Lenta.Ru: There is also a mention by Josephus, and some others.
As for the testimony of Josephus, it is very controversial. In any case, the text that we now have is, of course, the fruit of Christian editing. Most likely, Josephus made some mention of Jesus, but it’s hard to say what. But, again, he does not talk about the trial itself.
There are attempts to look at the trial of Jesus from the point of view of Jewish and Roman legal norms of the time. But these are modern designs. We don't have any documents. Unfortunately, Russian scientists do not take part in excavations in Jerusalem. Besides everything else, excavations abroad are very expensive.
Lenta.Ru: Here is a question that is quite popular and is repeated in different ways: “Do you think that Christianity has been preserved anywhere, at least a little close to what Jesus preached?” After all, every subsequent religious reform begins with the fact that “we are returning to the apostolic church.”
You can’t step into the same water twice; this is all a bit of a rethink. I would say that no, it has not survived. Everything is evolving. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. But it’s probably impossible otherwise.
Alexei
Hello.
Please clarify the role of the Apostle Paul in the development of Christianity and how much his understanding of religion differed from the direct disciples of Jesus. Are there any weighty arguments from science that indicate serious friction during the formation of early Christianity (I-III centuries)?
You know, this is also a very controversial issue. Paul saw himself as an apostle to the Gentiles. The fact is that as soon as pagans began to come to the first Christian community, this created certain problems, because the first Christians, Jews, considered themselves Jews, and the laws of Judaism limited communication between Jews and pagans. For example, communal meals were prohibited. And sharing meals was an essential part of the original Christian ritual. And in general, you see, any religious movement, especially one that has just emerged, strives for maximum internal unity. And here there are fundamentally different categories, different sacred points of view.
Some believed that this issue could be resolved in this way: the Gentiles must first become Jews. You must first undergo circumcision, only then water baptism. Paul opposed this. He believed that the Good News was intended for Jews and Gentiles alike. Gentiles should not be circumcised and generally forced to fulfill the Jewish law, because salvation is through death and through the cross of Christ. And he, of course, had serious disagreements with many of the apostles.
Perhaps - and most likely - the book "Acts of the Apostles", written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke, somewhat softens these contradictions. Although the epistles of Paul, in particular the Epistle to the Galatians, speak of a case of severe confrontation with the Apostle Peter.
Pavel's role is enormous. If we take the entire two thousand year history of Christianity, Paul is the largest figure after Jesus. Christianity largely acquired the appearance that it acquired precisely thanks to Paul.
Lenta.Ru: And finally, . What is this anyway?
It's difficult to say anything with complete certainty. After all, what did they actually determine? That in the place that was traditionally revered as the grave of the Apostle Paul, there is actually a burial dating back to the 1st-2nd centuries. But of course, we do not have absolute confidence that these are indeed the remains of Paul.
They drilled a hole there and did an analysis. Well, yes, this is already a lot, but, as you understand, there were many burials in the 1st-2nd centuries. This was traditionally considered to be Paul's tomb. But we cannot say from what time it was counted. We do not have either in the Acts of the Apostles or in any other text of that time a definite indication of the death of Paul precisely at this time, during Nero’s persecution, which we know about from external sources. Let's say Tacitus writes about the persecution and execution of Christians under Nero after the famous fire of Rome.
That is, we have no solid grounds to say anything. Could be? It could. Is this likely? Yes, in general, probably. But there is no evidence. We have evidence left about 30-35 years after these events, which indicates that Paul died a martyr's death. And it is not written where and under what circumstances. Only later was it tied to Rome. And we have evidence from the Acts of the Apostles that he was taken to Rome. That is, everything is somewhat shaky. Could this be Paul's tomb? Yes maybe. Can we say with certainty that this is Paul's tomb? No we can not. Maybe they will allow a full autopsy, and we will probably find something there, for example, there will be some inscriptions inside - we don’t know that yet.
Lenta.Ru: Catholic Church, Russian Orthodox Church, others local churches tend to help in this kind of research or rather hinder?
Differently. But in this case it is characteristic that the grave was not completely opened; it is still a shrine. And this moment plays its role. That is, apparently, from the point of view of the church, some manipulations cannot be carried out. At this stage, the church does not agree to this. She is a supporter of research, but careful research. I think this is not because the Vatican is afraid of any negative results - it really treats this as a sacred thing. A careful attitude is still required when approaching the shrine. I think that the Russian Church has a similar position on this issue. Another thing is that we do not have relics of original Christianity, naturally, because Christianity came to Rus' later. But I think that the position is fundamentally the same.
Nik
Dear Nikolai! Tell me how close to real events Are the historical inserts described in the novel “The Master and Margarita” worth it? And a serious question. What do you think, was early Christianity for the people of that period just a new sect, a new trend, maybe not bad, but contrary to the current canons and concepts? Approximately how we now perceive with bewilderment some “experts” of the truth?
It's novel. Writer's fantasy.
Dan Brown's case, I would say, is not good. If Dan Brown had taken the position that “I am a writer, I wrote, this is my right, artistic fantasy - and who is my judge here,” - this is understandable. But he has such a position, as if he had dug up some kind of truth.
But Bulgakov, it seems to me, never claimed that he was sure that everything was so. This is the right of the writer, but of course, this is not historical at all.
Boris K.
Hello!
Tell me, what influenced Prince Vladimir’s decision to be baptized through the Church of Constantinople, and not the Roman Church, why did he not convert to Catholicism? And for what reasons did he abandon Islam and Judaism?
Firstly, we must take into account one circumstance that is always forgotten: the baptism of Rus' took place before the division of churches. It happened in 1054, and Rus' adopted Christianity at the end of the 10th century.
Lenta.Ru: But in fact, by this time the Western and Eastern churches had already diverged greatly?
It's a difficult question. Yes, they were no longer the best better relationship between Rome and Constantinople. Of course, in reality this split is the end of a very long process. But this was not realized everywhere. Mainly in such newly converted countries. Because we have materials, chronicles and other sources that indicate that at the beginning of the 11th century there were connections with Western Christians. This was perceived as normal. Christians and Christians.
There is a known attempt at Christianization, undertaken under Olga, by Latin missionaries, but then it ended in failure - the pagan party, which was grouped around her son, Svyatoslav, won. But, apparently, there were some historical ties with Constantinople, at that moment more important than with any Western Christian countries. There are different explanations in the chronicle itself. It is difficult to say to what extent one can trust that the ambassadors were shocked by the richness of the worship in the Hagia Sophia.
Lenta.Ru: In The Tale of Bygone Years the division is quite clear: the Latins came, and then the Greeks came - the Latins were rejected, but the Greeks were accepted.
Yes. Moreover, it is not clear why the Latins were rejected.
Lenta.Ru: “Our fathers did not accept this.”
I will say this thing - maybe they will not agree with me - this was a moment when the subjective factor, the personality of Prince Vladimir, played a very important role.
The question always arises: is it possible to say what would have happened if. But it seems to me that perhaps there were some other options. Perhaps there would be an adoption of Western Christianity. Why not, when Western Christianity was adopted by the neighbors of Rus' - Poland in the west, the Norwegians in the north, with whom the Rurik dynasty had close ties... It was possible. Moreover, I believe that the adoption of Islam was possible. Indeed, Volga Bulgaria. The option with Khazar Judaism is much less likely, but the option of Western Christianity and Islam is possible, and it is clear that then the history of our country would look completely different. There was such a fork in the road. And here the choice of the prince, his entourage, plus, probably, some specific situational circumstances of that time - they were more interested in connections with Constantinople than with anyone else - determined what happened. Sometimes it happens that, based on some variable events, one choice or another is made, and then this has huge consequences.
Sergey
Hello!
What can you say about the anti-clerical aspect of Jesus' preaching?
Max
Dear Nikolai Vitalievich! I have two questions. 1. Please tell me how it happened that the modern Christian world has nothing in common with the Christianity described in the Bible (for example, there is not a hint of the Trinity, the veneration of images, homosexuality is condemned; it is also known that the early Christians did not interfere in politics and there was no division between clergy and laity, there was no veneration of any saints, relics, or the Virgin Mary)? 2. How can we explain such a craze for shrouds, “the tombs of Christ,” etc., but at the same time a complete disregard for the moral and spiritual principles contained in the Bible and which distinguished Christians of the 1st century from the pagans? Thank you.
I think that anti-clericalism is a modern concept, or more precisely, a concept of the New Age. I don’t know what Jesus’ anticlericalism was about, except that he criticized the temples, the temple establishment, the temple priesthood. But, you see, then, I repeat, religion was not limited to the temple, and there were many currents and directions.
Why has Christianity changed? A lot is listed here, perhaps not all quite accurately. Let's say, the difference between the clergy and the laity - it arises early.
Lenta.Ru: But again, it’s not evangelical, is it?
Everything changes, everything evolves. Every movement that emerges as charismatic is then institutionalized. Charismatic authority gives way to institutional authority. Christianity is no exception here, and it probably could not be otherwise. As for the hierarchy, the clergy, and some ossification in general.
As for the complete disregard for morality and so on, this is, in general, the author’s position, you can disagree with it.
As for images, relics, etc. - yes, of course, this is the influence of the peoples among whom Christianity spread - the Greeks and others. In particular, the veneration of sacred images, of course, does not have its roots in the Bible, but rather in the Greeks.
Trinity... Yes, this is also formed early, but not in the New Testament period. Somewhere in the 2nd century we see the influence of some also Greek philosophical doctrines, as a result of which the doctrine of the Trinity arises.
Critic
Dear Nikolai!
Let me ask you a few questions at once:
1) What is your attitude towards “historical forgeries”, in particular to the document about the Donation of Constantine?!
2) Don’t you think that the nationalization of Christianity, which occurred under Popes Leo I and Gregory I the Great, and also later, affected the purity of the faith itself?!
3) How would you interpret the term “heresy” in a modern interpretation?
I will be grateful for your answers.
1. What does “attitude towards counterfeits” mean? Fakes are fakes, they have always been around.
This is the early Middle Ages. Such a document was fabricated in the papal office in the name of Emperor Constantine. This is the same Roman emperor under whom Christianity was legalized and the process of its transformation into state religion Roman Empire. Allegedly, before his death, he actually transfers power over the empire to Pope Sylvester. This substantiated the pope's claims to secular power and supremacy in the church. But already in the Middle Ages this text raised doubts. It was finally exposed in the 15th century by the Italian humanist and philologist Lorenzo Valla.
2. I wouldn’t really concentrate here on Leo I and Gregory I. Gregory I was pope in the era of complete collapse, after the fall of the Roman Empire, when Rome had just been conquered by the Lombards, so this is historically inaccurate. And the fact that nationalization affected the purity of faith - yes, probably. Depending on the state, depending on the secular power. Although it is possible to explain historically why this happened, why it probably could not have been otherwise.
4. I am not a political scientist or a theologian. I would say this is a conservative pontificate. Of course, this is a victory for the conservative forces of the church. On the one hand, of course, this conservative turn began already under Pope John Paul II. But, say, compared to John XXIII, the initiator of Vatican II and his successor Paul VI, John Paul II was an outstanding charismatic personality. It was a very personal pontificate, and it is difficult for me to limit John Paul II to a conservative worldview. Yes, he was a traditionalist, but he was a broad personality, this determined many of the phenomena of his pontificate.
But the current pope, it seems to me, is not such a charismatic person, but is simply a church conservative. I don’t want to be a futurist - the question is: is this some kind of serious turn or is it a delay before some new update. The essential question is who the next pope will be. Will this line be continued? There is also a reformist line. The whole point is that hopes for renewal were pinned on Vatican II. Yes, renewal, but the other side is a decline in religiosity, people leaving the church. Hence now this conservative turn. We'll see what happens next.
Lenta.Ru: But is there soil for a Third Vatican?
Of course it exists, but we’ll see, I don’t know.
Kosmopletov A.M.
Firstly, Renan is still extremely outdated. This is the century before last. And this is still not entirely scientific literature, rather semi-fiction. It's well written, but of course it's completely outdated.
Our trouble is that in the West, New Testament science developed in the twentieth century, there was a large amount of literature and research, but in our country, unfortunately, all this has stalled and taken on ideological forms. It all started in the 19th century - there were no conditions in Russia, because there was spiritual censorship, and then the Soviet atheistic attitude, when it was necessary to prove that Jesus in general was a myth and so on.
Sventsitskaya’s books are the few genuine ones that exist. But recently, some popular books by domestic authors, and some translated books, have begun to appear. I'll point out something. Firstly, a book that was published in 2008 by a young Russian author, Gleb Yastrebov, called “Who was Jesus of Nazareth?” It is popular, easy to read, but the author is on the crest of the scientific mainstream. He has his own position, he knows perfectly all the literature that has been published recently. This is a very thorough book, it is wonderful, I recommend it.
Further. Eksmo Publishing House has launched a series of literature about early Christianity. They recently published two classic works under the same cover. One, however, is also quite old, from the 20s of the twentieth century, Bultmann, “Jesus”. The second is by David Flusser, an Israeli author, probably written in the 80s, also called “Jesus”. Overall this is a quality item.
Dodd's book The Founder of Christianity was reprinted several times. These are all popular books.
The most recent book, which came out maybe a month ago, is by Marcus Borg, called Rebel Jesus. He has a certain position in science, not everyone shares it, but, in any case, he is one of the serious modern authors.
I also recommend a collection of two books about Paul. It's called "Christ or the Law". There are two classic works there. One, from the beginning of the twentieth century, by the famous philosopher, theologian, public figure, and doctor Albert Schweitzer, is called “The Mysticism of the Apostle Paul.” And the second is relatively modern, also from the 80s, by a modern author - Sanders, "Paul, the Law and Jewish people" Sanders was one of the main figures in the turn in the study of Paul in the context of Jewish thought of his time.
Lenta.Ru: It turns out that there is already a lot.
Quite a lot, yes. But these are fragments, all positions are not represented. There is a sea of literature, and much still needs to be translated.
There is such an author, Wright, he is an Anglican bishop, he has a slightly apologetic position, but at the same time he is a scientist. His book was published - I call it, but I will not particularly recommend it, it is very large, thick and only those interested will master it - “Jesus and the Victory of God”. And just recently, Eksmo published his book, also dedicated - “Judas and the Gospel of Jesus”. Attached is a translation of the "Gospel of Judas", not from English, but from the original, from the Coptic language. This book can also be recommended; it has a fairly balanced view of this Gospel. A little biased - he is Christian bishop. But, in general, we can agree with Wright.
And here is Erman, the book has not yet been published, it will be published by the publishing house "The Whole World". I was asked to write a foreword or afterword. I think it will most likely come out early next year, - "Peter, Paul and Mary." I really liked the book, and I recommend it when it comes out in the future.
An interview on the topic of “destructive sects,” the equality of religions before the law and the signs of extremism in the activities of sectologist A. Dvorkin is given by Professor Nikolai Vitalievich Shaburov.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwrVhvrohlA(23 minutes)
“The fact that Dvorkin headed the Expert Council under the Ministry of Justice is, of course, a scandalous phenomenon. This is definitely true. I don’t know a single serious specialist, religious scholar, who has any positive attitude towards Dworkin, his activities, his texts, statements and the forms of polemics that he leads.”
“What he and his followers are doing is stirring up sectarian strife. And to a large extent, it is slander against organizations that, by the way, exist quite legally and are registered in the Russian Federation and operate within the framework of the law.” — N.V. Shaburov in an interview with the newspaper “Unsolved Crimes”, April 22, 2016
Full transcript of the interview:
Journalist: Nikolai Vitalievich, please tell us what the term “sect” means? What is he hiding behind himself? And, most importantly, why has this term acquired such a strongly negative connotation at the moment?
N.V. Shaburov: Sect is Latin for “separate.” This is, generally speaking, originally a church term. This was the name of those communities that separated from the church. Therefore, it is clear that from a church point of view, a sect is something negative. Well, here are Ernst Troeltsch and Max Weber - classics of the sociology of religion and religious studies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries - they divided religious organizations into churches, denominations and sects. A sect is like some kind of small group and, as a rule, with such a more critical attitude towards the world, more separation from the world, and so on. That is, in these works, among these authors and their followers, this is a neutral term. Just some kind of statement of fact.
If we take the modern, post-Soviet period, then I am one of those religious scholars, and it seems to me that they are now the majority, who generally refrain from using this term. Yes, this typology still remains, this scientific use in the traditions of Troeltsch and Weber. But this word has simply turned into a dirty nickname.
As for “totalitarian” and “destructive sects”... You see, firstly, this no longer has any scientific meaning, because in the press, when this is used, the very word “sect” is already something like that bad. And here an extra characteristic of “destructive” is added. “Destructive”, “totalitarian”. Well, “totalitarian” obviously means control over one’s own members, such total control, right? “Destructive” means such a negative role in society. That is, some kind of antisocial behavior is attributed to sects.
Journalist: Nikolai Vitalievich, I would like to ask you about the activities of apologetic centers. What initial mission does the concept of “apologetic center” carry? What activities, in principle, are apologetic centers engaged in?
N.V. Shaburov: Well, you mean ones like the center of St. Irenaeus of Lyons, right? What does Dvorkin do? You understand, every denomination naturally engages in apologetics. That is, by defending one’s teachings, and this includes, of course, polemics. Polemics with some other religious organizations, other teachings, doctrines. It's quite normal. This is natural, and everyone has the right to this. But I would only like the following things to be observed. This is objectivity. So that this polemic is based on some honest methods, let’s say, does not use unproven facts, stereotypes, and so on.
It is clear that from the point of view of, say, the teachings of the Orthodox Church, the doctrine of Pentecostals or Jehovah's Witnesses is not tenable. And representatives of the Orthodox Church have every right to justify this. But, I repeat, it is unpleasant when this is accompanied by some kind of distortion of facts and attribution to the opponent of something that does not actually exist. This is the first point.
The second point, you know, is when this apologetic rhetoric is adopted by some government agencies or representatives state power, representatives of some no longer church structures. This is completely, let me use this term, destructive. It’s destructive because... well, let’s not adhere to double standards, but let’s approach things the same way. What does "the same" mean? Well, let's put it this way: apply the same criteria when we talk about different religious organizations. You can treat it differently, but the criteria must be the same.
Journalist: In your opinion, why do apologetic centers and, in particular, the apologetic center named after Irenaeus of Lyons and Alexander Dvorkin hang certain labels on different organizations?
N.V. Shaburov: The fact that Dvorkin headed the Expert Council under the Ministry of Justice is, of course, a scandalous phenomenon. This is definitely true.
Journalist: Why?
N.V. Shaburov: Let’s just say that I don’t know a single serious specialist, religious scholar, who has any positive attitude towards Dworkin, his activities, his texts, statements and the forms of polemics that he leads. Moreover, I know that many representatives of the Orthodox Church, including those who conduct polemics - sectologists - are very skeptical of Dworkin, who begins to attribute some kind of criminal actions to his opponents, and so on.
Journalist: That is, you mean that he is somehow not taken seriously for some kind of bias in his activities?
V.N. Shaburov: Yes, that's right, absolutely. For his biased position. I would say that what he and his followers are doing is stirring up sectarian strife. And to a large extent, it is slander against organizations that, by the way, exist quite legally, are registered in the Russian Federation, and, in general, operate within the framework of the law.
Journalist: So you say that a number of religious scholars, and even a number of sectologists, do not perceive his work as scientific. But, as far as I know, he has been carrying out his activities for more than 20 years. And he also occupies a fairly high position in this religious niche. And he has a position and... How can all this be compared? Some kind of paradox emerges.
N.V. Shaburov: No, well, it’s clear that he has some kind of support, including in church circles, among those on whom the decision depends. Unfortunately, it cannot be said that the position he represents is marginal. She is not marginal. It is present in our society. But this is a position that seems destructive to me. It incites hostility towards a significant category of our citizens, who are completely law-abiding and, in many cases, useful for the fatherland.
Journalist: And under what pretext is this happening? That is, what claims are made against these ordinary useful organizations?
V.N. Shaburov: You understand, it’s convenient for officials to deal with a small number of religious organizations. Yes, there is a Russian Orthodox Church. You understand, when they proceed not from the interests of individual citizens, but from some other position... The Russian Orthodox Church, which is the religion of Russians, first of all, and of a number of other peoples of our country. There are other peoples, other ethnic groups that historically profess Islam, or Buddhism, or Judaism. Here I have listed these so-called traditional religions, which are listed in the preamble to the law “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations”. Well, it’s as if we don’t need anything else at all. The rest brings some kind of confusion and is generally a bit of a mess. But many officials, unfortunately, sincerely share such views. Like here, for example, especially in recent years, all sorts of attacks have begun on Orthodox communities that do not belong to the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. But here there is even more of a frontal logic: here is the Moscow Patriarchate, what other Orthodox Christians can there be? What it is? Nobody needs this at all. Well, in fact, for a number of reasons, some other associations arose. There is this phenomenon called alternative Orthodoxy. And I repeat once again: this is the right of every citizen to choose his own worldview and religious organization, including if a person professes Orthodox faith, he is also free to choose the organization that is closer to him.
Journalist: What do you think, given the law on freedom of conscience on the territory of the Russian Federation, how can anyone be against a person’s choice of any religion?
V.N. Shaburov: People can have whatever opinions they want. And, moreover, a person may be convinced that only belonging to his religion leads to salvation, and, say, the activities of other religions lead to the fact that people are doomed to destroy their souls, and so on. It's his right. But as far as rights are concerned, of course, everyone, this is certainly not only a law on freedom of conscience and religious organizations, but this, and what is much more important, is directly written in the Constitution, which protects the rights and freedoms of citizens : everyone is free to profess any views and belong to any religious organization. And in general, it would be useful if the angle of view were somehow changed, so that it would not come from the interests of some large religious organizations, but from the interests of people, and so that it all comes from below. Yes, I am a person with my own rights, and most importantly, I am free. I am free in my choice. You see, choosing a religious organization. Or maybe my choice will be such that I will not belong to any of them. And no one should decide this issue for me. I guess so, anyway.
Journalist: Do you think this could be, let's say, labeling? On you, as some lawyers of religious organizations, new religious movements, could this be due to the fact that there is simply a struggle for the flock? Large religious denominations, for example.
N.V. Shaburov: No, well, that goes without saying. You see, naturally, religious organizations - both large and small, and there is no getting around it - they act as competitors, we will say. But the situation can also be presented in this language. There is a certain market, there is supply, there is struggle. The fight for souls, or the fight for the flock, whatever you want to call it. Certainly. Naturally.
But, you see, once again I would like to separate the confessional position, which is completely justified, from the position of government officials or legislators, who should guard the rights and freedoms of citizens and in no way make a decision in favor of some traditional confession. .
Journalist: As far as I know, having already talked with some experts within the framework of this project, that from apologetic centers, including, there are attacks not only on organizations that are accused of sects, cults, and so on, but also on religious scholars and experts who really are experts in this activity. What is this connected with? And what kind of complaints are being made against you and your colleagues?
N.V. Shaburov: It seems to me that this is a natural process. Because Dworkin, after all, claims that he represents such a scientific position. At the same time, I have already said that I do not know a single religious scholar who would recognize his work as scientific. That is, here we can say - science and pseudoscience. Therefore, his attitude towards experts, towards religious scholars, is quite understandable. But there is a more serious question here, because we are sometimes accused of taking some kind of biased position and being such defenders of sects or new religious movements, which, it seems to me, is completely untrue. We take an objective position. We oppose double standards. This is one moment. And, besides, we are told that: “Well, after all, you are scientists. Why are you taking on any human rights functions?” You know, as one of my young colleagues formulated quite accurately - yes, we are scientists, but the very concept of science is formed within the framework of a certain secular and civil consciousness and, naturally, we stand precisely in these positions. That is, we cannot speak out against some religious communities on the grounds that they, say, represent some kind of minority, that their beliefs do not coincide with the beliefs of some dominant, so-called traditional religions, and so on.
After all, the fact is that the accusations that are usually brought against these movements (we are talking about Christian organizations and new religious movements) - what are they? I’ve already said: control over members of the community, there is sometimes control over family life and so on. After all, this all happens in traditional religions, and there are many such cases. There is a Latin proverb: Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi - “What is allowed to Jupiter is not allowed to the bull.” We are against the idea of Jupiters and bulls - for us everyone is equal here, you understand? And here we proceed from our scientific position, from some kind of civic position, but we are not at all some kind of biased lawyers of certain organizations. But, it is clear that those who, on the contrary, stand on the position of such inequality in the sphere of religion, those who believe that some religious organizations should be given preference, do not like our position. And hence this kind of attacks.
Journalist: How would it be possible today to effectively defend oneself, resist or resist such attacks of some kind of religious extremism?
N.V. Shaburov: First of all, our responsibility, when we see any unlawful actions against some religious organizations, is that we, as experts, as scientists, as citizens, must intervene in this. That's what we do. We participate in trials as experts and as witnesses. This is true.
Journalist: And the lawsuits in which you are involved, who initiates these cases? That is, where do they come from?
N.V. Shaburov: You know, they are very different. They are very different because sometimes these are accusations of extremism, recognition of some texts as extremist, or in general some organizations or individuals are accused of extremism. Therefore, once again: there must be a single standard. Nobody calls on anyone, including officials, to equally love everyone, all religious organizations. And in general, to love anyone. But everyone must be equal before the law. And the criteria should be the same. If we see extremism in something, then we must extend this to everyone, all religious organizations, and not select some as “whipping boys.”
Nikolai SHABUROV - born in 1953 in Tbilisi. Graduated from the Faculty of History of Moscow State University. Associate Professor at the Russian State University for the Humanities, director of the Center for the Study of Religions at the Russian State University for the Humanities. Author of a number of works on the history of Gnosticism and early Christianity, as well as on the modern religious situation in Russia. Lives in Moscow.
Points-Puncta
A quarterly Catholic magazine devoted to issues of religion, culture and society. M.: College of St. Thomas Aquinas, 2001-2002
The subtitle alone is intriguing. IN Last year They talk a lot about Catholicism, about its “expansion” in Russia, but these are all words, words, words... In reality, the presence of Catholicism is almost not felt. And here is a magazine that openly calls itself Catholic and at the same time is dedicated not to the affairs of the Russian Catholic community, but to “problems of religion, culture and society.”
Of course, this is not the only serious Catholic publication in Russian. In the circles of humanitarian intellectuals interested in the problems of Christianity, the magazine “Symbol” is widely known, but the editorial office of “Symbol” is located in Paris, and although a significant part of the authors of this almanac live in Russia, it still bears some stamp of “foreignness”. True, the editor-in-chief of “Points”, Father Stanislav Opel from the Society of Jesus (Jesuit Order), who was previously the rector of the Moscow College of St. Thomas Aquinas, lives in Poland. He was, if not the first, then one of the first Catholic priests to be deprived of a Russian visa and lose the opportunity to continue working in Russia. However, in reality the magazine is made in Moscow through the efforts of deputy editor-in-chief N. Muskhelishvili and the editorial board, which by no means consists only of Catholics - it includes, in particular, famous philosophers Anatoly Akhutin and Vladimir Bibikhin. There are many non-Catholics among the authors. And this is no coincidence. The publisher of the magazine, the College (now the Institute) of Philosophy, Theology and History of St. Thomas Aquinas, supervised by the Society of Jesus, attracts many professors and lecturers from Moscow universities to teach. In this case, the main criterion is their professionalism, and not their religious affiliation.
Let us now turn to the contents of the published issues (by the way, the magazine is actually published twice a year, and the trick with double issues does not turn it into a quarterly).
It is not surprising that three out of four issues contain materials dedicated to Ignatius of Loyola: in No. 1-2 for 2001 - an article by General of the Society of Jesus P.-H. Kolvenbach “Education in the spirit of St. Ignatius”, in No. 3- 4 for 2002 - an article by the same author “The Experience of Christ in Ignatius of Loyola”, as well as an interesting publication from the archive of Sergei Eisenstein, in which the great film director compares the methods of spiritual exercises of Loyola and the Stanislavsky system. But unique in this regard is No. 1-2 from 2002, containing exclusively Loyola texts, commentaries and articles about these texts. The issue includes two of the most important texts of Loyola in a brilliant translation by Andrey Koval - Autobiography and Spiritual Diary. Until this time, only the “Spiritual Exercises” of St. were available in Russian. Ignatius. I would like these translations to be noticed by the reading public - they are not only significant cultural monuments with high artistic merit, but also stunning evidence of the spiritual and mystical experience of their author, paradigmatic texts of the tradition of Jesuit mysticism dating back to Ignatius of Loyola, representative examples of Western Christian spirituality.
These works differ from each other - the piercingly frank and at the same time soberly serious “Autobiography” immediately captivates the reader, while reading the protocol-dry “Spiritual Diary” requires considerable effort. But these efforts are justified: the thoughtful reader will be more than rewarded. Indeed, for Russia, acquaintance with the creations of Loyola is a triple discovery. Ignatius, who was always depicted simultaneously religious fanatic and a cynic who proclaimed that the end justifies the means, appears as an ascetic who devoted himself entirely to the service of Christ and the Church, a mystic visionary and a subtle psychologist. Second discovery: the Jesuit Order, denounced for centuries as a totalitarian organization that did not disdain anything to achieve its goals, that justified any crime by the interests of the cause, that created a sophisticated system of manipulating human consciousness, turns out to be a school of spiritual self-discipline and the education of a universal human personality.
Here I will allow myself a digression. There are terms whose specific cultural and historical meaning, if not forgotten, is remembered much less frequently. figurative meaning. Moreover, the specific meaning of these terms in our perception bears the imprint of the figurative meaning.
In fact, what is usually associated with the word “scholasticism”? The everyday idea is reflected in authoritative dictionaries. Dahl: “a philosophy of appearance based on logic or dialectics; in general, scholasticism, scholasticism, dry, dull, lifeless.” Ozhegov (a hundred years after Dahl): “1. A medieval idealistic philosophy hostile to science, based on the dogmas of the church and characterized by extreme abstraction. 2. Knowledge divorced from life, based on abstract reasoning not verified by experience, literalism.” Now, thank God, the reader interested in philosophy can turn to the works of Anselm of Canterbury, Abelard, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Boethius of Dacia, Duns Scotus, W. Ockham, translated in the last decade, to the studies of E. Gilson, F. Copleston, V. Gaidenko, G. Smirnova, S. Neretina, at least to the fragment of Thomas Aquinas “Against the Doctrine of the Eternity of the World” translated by T.Yu. Borodai, preceded by her most interesting article “The Problem of the Eternity of the World” (“Points”, 2002, No. 3-4 ). This will help him decide for himself whether scholasticism is really so stupid and lifeless.
There is a similar story with the word “Talmudist”. According to Ozhegov, this is: “1. Follower and interpreter of the casuistry of the Talmud [in my 1953 edition with a small letter - N.Sh.], 2. Transfer. A lecturer, a scholastically reasoning person (disdainful).” A remarkable, in its own way, definition, referring both to scholasticism, and to casuistry (informed judgments about which are possible only within the framework of a conversation about Catholic theology), and to scholasticism (even the Old Believers got it!). But does all this have anything to do with the real Talmud with its subtle methods of hermeneutics and sophisticated culture of intellectual dialogue?
Or - “Pharisee”. In Dahl's dictionary it is simply “hypocrite.” Ozhegov is more detailed: “1. In ancient Judea: a member of the religious-political party of the wealthy strata of the city, distinguished by fanaticism and hypocrisy in fulfilling the external rules of piety. 2. transfer. Hypocrite, bigot (contempt).” But the last characteristic, readers will say, is based on the Gospel! Yes, but reading the New Testament for almost two thousand years, for some reason they very rarely paid attention to the words of the Apostle Paul: “Men and brethren! I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; I am being judged for my hopes of the resurrection of the dead” (Acts 23.6). And if they did, they interpreted it as follows: Paul called himself a Pharisee for “tactical” reasons; appearing before the Sanhedrin, he wanted to enlist the support of the Pharisees. According to this logic, it turns out that when Paul appeared before a pagan court, he was able to call himself a pagan in order to save his life. I have a better opinion of the Apostle. It was simply natural for Paul to be called both a follower of Jesus Christ and a Pharisee. Moreover, modern New Testament scholarship has revealed many parallels between the sayings of Jesus and the rabbinic teachers, heirs of the Pharisees. So “pharisaism requires serious rethinking.
And, of course, this verbal series includes the words “Jesuit” and “Jesuitism.” So, according to Ozhegov, a Jesuit is: “1. A Catholic monk, a member of the so-called “Society of Jesus,” which is the support of the papacy and the blackest reaction, not disdaining any means to achieve its goals in the fight against progress and democracy. 2. transfer. About a cunning, two-faced person.” And Jesuitism is “Hypocrisy,” duplicity characteristic of a Jesuit” (do you catch the resemblance to a Pharisee?).
The tradition of such an attitude towards the Jesuits appeared simultaneously with the Order itself. In Russia it is especially strong. Let us remember how Alyosha Karamazov characterized the Jesuits: “We know the Jesuits, they speak badly of them<…>They are simply a Roman army for the future world earthly kingdom, with the emperor - the Roman high priest at the head... This is their ideal, but without any secrets and sublime sadness... The simplest desire for power, earthly dirty blessings, enslavement... like the future of serfdom, with the fact that they will become landowners... That's all they have. They don’t even believe in God, maybe.” Without a doubt, this is close to the beliefs of Dostoevsky himself. And if we remember “Letters to a Provincial” by B. Pascal, Voltaire’s denunciations, Stendhal’s novels and much, much more, then we can consider the traditional idea fair.
But - provided that we turn a blind eye to exemplary Jesuit schools, in which advanced pedagogical ideas were introduced and a great many outstanding figures of European culture and science of the 16th-19th centuries studied, to numerous missionaries who combined the preaching of the Gospel with the study of customs, morals, history , literature of the converted peoples, who compiled dictionaries and geographical maps, wrote poems in local languages, who became the founders of European Indology and Sinology, Japanese studies and ethnology. The book of the French historian Michel Leroy, “The Myth of the Jesuits: From Beranger to Michelet,” published two years ago in Russian translation, gives an idea of how the stereotype of Jesuit conspirators striving for world domination was created. As for moral uncleanliness, we have to agree with the point of view of one very unpopular politician of the first half of the last century: “The Jesuit order, created in the first half of the 16th century. to repel Protestantism, he never taught, by the way, that any means, even criminal from the point of view of Catholic morality, are permissible if only they lead to the goal, i.e. to the triumph of Catholicism. Such an internally contradictory and psychologically unthinkable doctrine was maliciously attributed to the Jesuits by their Protestant and partly Catholic opponents, who did not hesitate in the means to achieve his goals. The Jesuit theologians, who, like the theologians of other schools, were concerned with the question of personal responsibility, taught in fact that the means in themselves may be indifferent, but that the moral justification or condemnation of the means follows from the end. Thus, a shot in itself is indifferent, a shot at a mad dog threatening a child is a good thing; shooting with intent to commit violence or murder is a crime. The theologians of the order did not want to say anything other than these generalities. As for their practical morality, the Jesuits were not at all worse than other monks or Catholic priests, on the contrary, they rather rose above them, in any case, they were more consistent, bolder and more insightful than others. The Jesuits represented a militant organization, closed, strictly centralized, offensive and dangerous not only for enemies, but also for allies. In psychology and methods of action, the Jesuit of the “heroic” era differed from the average priest, like a warrior of the church from its shopkeeper. We have no reason to idealize either one or the other. But it is completely unworthy to look at a fanatical warrior through the eyes of a stupid and lazy shopkeeper” (L.D. Trotsky. Their morality and ours - see the collection “ Ethical Thought. 1991”, M., “Republic”, 1992). By the way, main enemy Trotsky I. Stalin expressed a diametrically opposite opinion. But how much it says, first of all, about himself! To Emil Ludwig’s question: “But don’t you recognize the positive qualities of the Jesuits?” Stalin replied: “Yes, they have a systematic approach, perseverance in working to achieve bad goals. But their main method is surveillance, espionage, getting into the soul, bullying - what could be positive about this?”
It is not my goal to write an apology for the Jesuits and thereby replace one myth with another. But it’s time to stop comparing ideal (and often idealized) Orthodoxy with real (and often maligned) Catholicism. I will allow myself one more long quote: “In those years there lived the heretic Apollinaris, who falsely philosophized about the incarnation of the Lord. He was resourceful in words and skilled in Hellenic wisdom, as a result of which he greatly confused the Church of God and drew many into his heresy. This heretic devoted all his work and all his efforts, from his very youth to old age, to corrupting the Orthodox and leading them into his error. He wrote many books against the Orthodox, of which two are especially remarkable, because in them all his soul-harming teachings are most fully expressed. He used them as weapons in his fight against Orthodox way verbal competitions. These books of his were placed in the custody of one woman, his cohabitant. The Monk Ephraim, having learned about these books, invented his own even more amazing trick against the heretical: he came to that woman secretly and highly praised Apollinaris, calling himself the latter’s disciple. As if wanting to learn wisdom unknown to him, he asked the woman to give him for a short time the Apollinarian books, which she kept, in order to briefly copy out the most remarkable passages from them. The woman, being sure that this was really her friend’s student, gave him both books, with the condition that he return them as soon as possible and not tell anyone about them. Saint Ephrem, taking the books, took them to his monastery and, having prepared glue, all the sheets in them, bending them one by one, glued them together until he finally glued them all together so that the books became like one piece of wood or stone, and not a single sheet could be was to be separated from the other. He then took the books to the woman. She, taking them and not looking inside, put them in their place. Then there was a dispute between the Orthodox and the heretic Apollinaris, who had already grown old. No longer possessing the former resourcefulness in disputes and having a weak memory, due to old age, he wanted to achieve victory over the Orthodox with the help of those books of his; but, having taken them, he could not open them, because... the sheets were tightly glued and petrified. He was filled with great shame and left the cathedral defeated and disgraced, and then soon, out of grief and great shame, he lost his life, casting out his accursed soul in shame.” (“The Life of our Venerable Father Ephraim the Syrian” - See Selected Lives of Saints. M. “Young Guard”, 1992). Isn’t this an example of “Jesuit” morality?
But let us return to Loyola and mention the third discovery awaiting its readers. Those of them who, interested in the “Autobiography” and “Spiritual Diary” or the quotations given by S. Eisenstein from Loyola’s “Spiritual Exercises”, will turn to the full test of the latter work (Ignatius of Loyola “Spiritual Exercises. - Bibliotheque slave de Paris, 1966) , will discover - provided, of course, that they have read the works of the Greek fathers of asceticism - a lot of familiar things. It is no coincidence that in 1800 St. Composed on Mount Athos came out. Nicodemus Svyatogorets “Spiritual Exercises”, which are based on the Italian version of “Spiritual Exercises” by Ignatius of Loyola. Let us remember that another outstanding monument of Catholic mysticism of the 16th century. - “Spiritual Warfare” by Lorenzo Scupoli enjoys enormous authority in Orthodox world thanks to the translation of St. Nicodemus the Holy Mountain, who called it “Invisible Warfare.”
V. Veniaminov writes about the acute and eternally relevant topic of Orthodox-Catholic relations in the article “United Christianity” (“Points”, 2002, No. 3-4). This pseudonym is usually used by V. Bibikhin). The author develops the ideas of V. Solovyov, and you agree with almost everything he writes, but you regret to admit that the forces of hostility and division are now ruling the roost, and sensible words have little chance of being heard.
Looking through the four published issues of “Points”, you find that if in the first issue articles on strictly religious topics predominate (an important exception is S. Khoruzhy’s article “Analytics of Death in Sein und Zeit”), then in the second and fourth (the third, as already indicated, dedicated to I. Loyola) the emphasis is shifted to problems of culture and philosophy. The best materials of the journal include, in my opinion, the publications of Augustine (2001, No. 3-4) and Thomas, articles by S. Khoruzhy about Heidegger (2001, No. 1-2) and Nietzsche (2002, No. 3-4), in in which the author tries to find in the philosophy of the modern era fragments of an “alternative” ontology, consonant with the doctrines and practices of Eastern Christian ascetics, philosophical essays by A. Akhutin and V. Gubin (both 2002, No. 3-4).
The editors of “Tochek” are fulfilling their promise stated in the preface to the first issue: “We would like to understand its [the magazine’s] Catholic affiliation - and we would like it to be understood this way - in the etymological sense of the word, namely, universally.” .
It is characteristic that the magazine is devoid of any elements of clericalism. And this is what distinguishes it from even the best Orthodox magazines, which cannot avoid clerical bias. It seems that such cultural openness and the desire for universality attract many, especially representatives of the humanitarian intelligentsia, to Catholicism. Of course, it is not as strongly rooted in modern Russian life as Protestantism. However, Catholicism made its contribution to the development of Russian culture, which is unimaginable without V. Pecherin, P. Chaadaev, V. Ivanov or A. Schnittke. In addition, Catholicism in Russia testifies to the living tradition of Western Christian spirituality, so the common opposition of spiritual Russia to the unspiritual secular West is based on poor knowledge of the same West. In this capacity, Catholicism will always be present in Russia. It’s just a shame that this example of universalism does not encourage competition, but often causes anger and strengthens particularistic tendencies in Russian Orthodoxy.
Am I exaggerating?
I encourage the reader to try the next experiment. Walk along Bolshaya Nikitskaya Street from Okhotny Ryad to Nikitsky Gate. You will come across two bookstores: the bookshop at the University Church of St. Tatiana and the Catholic store “Paoline”. Their assortment includes a considerable amount of the same literature. But take a closer look at the differences - in the Tatian shop you will never find the works of Freud and Buber, Boccaccio and G. Miller, Luther and the Catholic Encyclopedia. But among the Pauline sisters, Orthodox literature is presented in a very large quantities, and you won’t find only the works of Nilus or horror stories about the Antichrist in Moscow. Feel, as they say, the difference.
Nikolay Vitalievich Shaburov(born January 10, 1953, Tbilisi, USSR) - Russian religious scholar and cultural scientist. Author of a number of works on the history of Gnosticism and early Christianity, as well as on the modern religious situation in Russia. Candidate of Cultural Studies, Professor.
Biography
Born on January 10, 1953 in Tbilisi. According to his own words, he has Armenian roots and, according to family tradition, comes from the Georgian-Mingrelian noble family of Shavdia.
In 1975 he graduated from the Faculty of History of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov.
In 1989, he was invited to teach the subject “history of religions” at the Moscow Institute of History and Archives at the Department of Museology.
Since 1992 - Director of the Educational and Scientific Center for the Study of Religions of the Russian State University for the Humanities.
In 1999, he defended his dissertation for the degree of candidate of cultural studies on the topic “The functions of myth in the Gnostic and Christian traditions in the era of late antiquity: Based on the example of the texts of the Corpus Hermeticum and monuments of theological disputes of the 4th century.” (Specialty 24.00.02 - Historical Cultural Studies).
Member of the editorial board of the scientific and theoretical journal “Religious Studies”.
Scientific works
Dissertations
- Functions of myth in the Gnostic and Christian traditions in the era of late antiquity (on the example of the texts of the Corpus Hermeticum and monuments of theological disputes of the 4th century): Author's abstract. dis. . Ph.D. cultural studies. M., 1999. 29 p.
Monographs
- Shaburov N.V. Problems of paradox and analysis of consciousness: Cultural, historical and philosophical aspects. - M.: Institute of Molecular Genetics of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1987. - 80 p.
- Muskhelishvili N. L., Shaburov N. V., Shrader Yu. A. Symbol and deed. - M., 1987.
Tutorials
- Shaburov N.V. Ch. 3. Christianity // Pages of the history of religion: Textbook. allowance. - M., 1992. - P. 48-81.
- Religions of the world: 10-11 grades. A manual for students of general education. schools, institutions / N.V. Shaburov, L.G. Zhukova, A.V. Zhuravsky, etc. - M.: Bustard; Natalis, 1997. - 272 pp.: ill. - ISBN 5-7107-0982-4. - ISBN 5-88863-0003-9 (erroneous). (The manual “Religions of the World” was approved by the Federal Expert Council and recommended for publication by the Directorate of General Secondary Education of the Ministry of General and Professional Education of the Russian Federation.)
Articles
- Shaburov N.V. Perception of Hermeticism by the ideologists of early Christianity: Lactantius and Augustine // Meroe. - M., 1985. - Issue. 3. - pp. 243-252.
- Shaburov N.V. Man and the world in Gnostic teachings // Hellenistic philosophy: modern problems and discussions: Sat. scientific Art. - M., 1986. - P. 84-103.
- Muskhelishvili N.L., Shaburov N.V., Shreider Yu.A. On the symbolism of the sermon // Man. - 1991. - No. 4.
- Shaburov N.V., Muskhelishvili N.L. The legacy of Russian religious philosophy and the ideology of totalitarianism // Country and World. - 1992. - No. 2. - P. 110-121.
- Shaburov N.V. The catchman of Hermas Trismegistus // Urania. - 1993. - No. 4. - P. 47-54.
- Shaburov N.V. History of the ancient Church and an introduction to the history of ancient Eastern churches // Collection of educational programs. - M., 1997. - P. 75-76.
- Shaburov N.V. Historiography of ancient Hermeticism // Russia and gnosis: Conference materials. Moscow. VGBIL. March 23, 1999.. - M.: Rudomino, 2000. - P. 4-14.
- Shaburov N.V. How is religious studies possible? // Problems of teaching and the current state of religious studies in Russia: Conference materials. Moscow, December 2-3, 1999. - M.: Rudomino, 2000. - P. 23-30.
- Shaburov N.V. Religious tolerance. Historical and political dimensions // / Compilation and general editing by A. A. Krasikov and E. S. Tokareva. - M.: Moscow Bureau for Human Rights, Academia, 2006. - P. 88-90.
- Le Statut legal des religions en Russie et L’idee de symphonie // Istina, Paris: Center d’etudes Istina. - 2005. - No. 1. - P. 67-77.
Expertise
- Expert opinion on the book by A. V. Borodina “Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture” dated March 16, 2003.
Journalism
- Shaburov N.V. The end of religious freedom: From ideological sabotage to spiritual aggression // Results. - 1997. - No. 38. - P. 56-57.
Interview
- Nikolai Shaburov, director of the Center for the Study of Religions of the Russian State University for the Humanities // Lenta.ru. - 07/08/2009.
- Orlova L. “Religious scholars are still underestimated” // Nezavisimaya Gazeta. - 09/07/2011.
